I didn't understand his clipped writings at first either, but Phan cleared it up. He's referring to Simpson winning last weekend. And Erik is right ... it's quite a bit different than previous years "silly seasons" because there are a lot more names playing and they are earning 2014 Fedex Cup points.

Originally Posted by turtleback

Which kind of confirms 4-putts point that he didn't win any 2013 events.

I'm confused. What year is it again?

I think the Tour has done a great job of making the end run relevant again. The fields will be much better going forward. Off topic, I know, so that is all I'll say about it here.

I realize that. I just don't see it as relevant to what I posted after the 2013 season was in the books. My statement about wins through 2013 was accurate, and even if Simpson wins 15 of these "new" tournaments, it shouldn't get him consideration for the HoF.They simply aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.

This is the time of year when the real big guys are getting in their sponsor's requirements, and otherwise taking time off to be with their families, and that's as it should be. It seems to me as if Finchem is trying to take that opportunity for a break away from them just to make the Tour coffers even fatter than they already are. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.

I disagree in that the new schedule and how these tournaments award FedEx points makes the events just as important as events after January 1st. I also question if anyone would go back to review the wins a player had to determine which ones were "important" or not. I didn't see anyone go back and pick apart all of Couples wins to determine if they were "important" enough to warrant HoF inclusion. Most see it as simply, Major or Non-Major.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

I'm confused. What year is it again?

I think the Tour has done a great job of making the end run relevant again. The fields will be much better going forward. Off topic, I know, so that is all I'll say about it here.

Calendar year is 2013, PGA Tour year is 2014, but surely you knew that and were just being difficult.

I think the Tour has done a great job of making the end run relevant again. The fields will be much better going forward. Off topic, I know, so that is all I'll say about it here.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Calendar year is 2013, PGA Tour year is 2014, but surely you knew that and were just being difficult.

I am not trying ot be difficult. On the contrary, I am pointing out that it is still 2013 and I am sure that a guy like Webb Simpson doesn't care what season it is. He is a Major winner and a top 20 player and fits the profile of a guy who probably has expectations to win every time out. Scott Hoch, not so much.

If you read through the thread, you'll find plenty of arguments which show (or attempt to, or say that) that the competition was weaker in Jack's day. At the top, at the bottom, regardless…

And of course Jack won against more Hall of Famers. Tiger's peers aren't old enough to be in the Hall of Fame. Jack didn't compete against very many current Hall-of-Fame members either.

It's fine that you want to call Jack as the greatest ever. I'm pretty split myself. But I'm also of the opinion that you can't really compare strength of field. There's no real way to say how much winning 14 majors against modern fields compares to winning 18 against fields in the 60s and 70s.

iacas, Thanks for your thoughtful response. I watched Nicklaus play in person, as a caddie in '65 and '66 on the driving range and as a spectator. I have never seen Tiger play in person, because he has never played in New Orleans (Zurich Classic) or even nearby. Jack won his last Major in 1986, i.e., well beyond the 60's and 70's.

You wrote, "There's no real way to say how much winning 14 majors against modern fields compares to winning 18 against fields in the 60s and 70s." I agree. but that is my point as well. Who are today's clearly potential "Hall of Famers"? Other than Tiger and Mickelson? NO ONE. Nada. In Tiger's era, there have only been 2 alpha males, Tiger and Phil.

Even today, I would think on a given day that Tom Watson or Fred Couples could out play the Tiger.

You wrote, "There's no real way to say how much winning 14 majors against modern fields compares to winning 18 against fields in the 60s and 70s." I agree. but that is my point as well. Who are today's clearly potential "Hall of Famers"? Other than Tiger and Mickelson? NO ONE. Nada. In Tiger's era, there have only been 2 alpha males, Tiger and Phil.

Besides Vijay, Ernie, Couples, Monty, and Jose Maria? (All of whom are already in the HOF.)

Oh wait, I forgot to put my hyperbole hat on. Gimme a second.
Here's the thing, which you might have heard if you went back a few pages. Deeper fields means that the top looks diluted and weaker. Golfers today don't have stand-out HOF resumes not because they're not good enough players, but because everyone is good enough by the standards of yesterday, and that makes it difficult to stand out.

The top looks worse not in spite of the bottom being better, but because of it.

Honestly Bill if you think majors are the end all be all then Jack is the greatest. If that's what you think thats your choice. I feel like there is a lot more than that in crowing someone the GOAT. Like Erik said look up the other stats and you will see how much better tiger is in everything else. Besides he has a lot of time to close the majors gap.
Bill what would you say if Tiger wins 100 pga events a few more POY awards but only one more major?

You wrote, "There's no real way to say how much winning 14 majors against modern fields compares to winning 18 against fields in the 60s and 70s." I agree. but that is my point as well. Who are today's clearly potential "Hall of Famers"? Other than Tiger and Mickelson? NO ONE. Nada. In Tiger's era, there have only been 2 alpha males, Tiger and Phil.

Even today, I would think on a given day that Tom Watson or Fred Couples could out play the Tiger.

Fred Couples? Fred had plenty of years to outplay Tiger Woods and never did it. His career overlapped Tiger's more than Gene Littler's overlapped Jack Nicklaus… please. And you think today's HoF class contains only Tiger and Phil, but you included such stalwarts as Chi Chi Rodriguez, who never finished in the top five of any major ever?

You're delusional. But that's fine - you're an old-timer, and so you're nostalgic. It's fine if you want to ignore that half of the field in most events during Jack's prime years was comprised of club pros.

The arguments have been made countless times. Read the thread, or don't, but don't just keep repeating the same old stuff. It's just that - old (and unoriginal).

P.S. I'm on record as saying it's pretty close. 15 major wins by Tiger, though, and I'm fairly certain my needle swings his way. Same for ten or so more PGA Tour wins, largely because of the much stiffer competition Tiger's faced.

@metrybill, it's been covered countless times. When there are only 10 good players at a time, their records are bound to be better than when there are 100 good players.

And I'm just making those numbers up to illustrate my point.

By the way, you don't have to go back too many pages to find a rather long list of the stats in which Tiger kicks Jack's ass.

Yes we've been over this a few times I'm split as well and think you can make a good argument for either player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metrybill

iacas, Thanks for your thoughtful response. I watched Nicklaus play in person, as a caddie in '65 and '66 on the driving range and as a spectator. I have never seen Tiger play in person, because he has never played in New Orleans (Zurich Classic) or even nearby. Jack won his last Major in 1986, i.e., well beyond the 60's and 70's.

You wrote, "There's no real way to say how much winning 14 majors against modern fields compares to winning 18 against fields in the 60s and 70s." I agree. but that is my point as well. Who are today's clearly potential "Hall of Famers"? Other than Tiger and Mickelson? NO ONE. Nada. In Tiger's era, there have only been 2 alpha males, Tiger and Phil.

Even today, I would think on a given day that Tom Watson or Fred Couples could out play the Tiger.

Tiger is the best today. But I am not convinced he is the best ever..

Not that I necessarily agree with comparing players from different eras but Tiger will have competed against more than one hall of famer when all is said and done. Vijay, Padraig Harrington, Ernie Els, Rory McIlroy and possibly Jim Furyk will be in the HOF (I think Ernie and Vijay are already in). You could even throw Couples in there since he has played a decent portion of his career in the "Tiger era". Who knows what other players will become HOF players, Justin Rose, Brandt Snedeker, Adam Scott certainly have the potential.

It is always kind of funny when someone comes in on a 200+ page thread and triumphantly makes arguments, as if they have discovered something new and conclusive, that have already been made (and largely refuted) dozens of times in those 200+ pages.

But just to give you a little food for thought, I will repeat, for about the tenth time something a player from Jack's time wrote in 1996 to explain why there weren't any superstars in golf anymore (as of 1996).

Quote:

“I am often asked to comment on the causes for the ‘decline of the superstar’, as many writers have chosen to call it. To my mind there are essentially three. Although it may not be the most critical, the first is golf equipment.”

…

“As equipment has improved, but particularly the ball, more of our great old courses have become less challenging or less interesting to play, or both.” …

…

“Even more unfortunate to my mind than the impact of equipment advances on our finest courses is their contribution to the homogenizing of the players. Simply put, the more forgiving the tools, the tougher it becomes for the best to rise above the rest”. …

“I am convinced that at least a partial answer would be to have all top tournaments worldwide played with a uniform ball…, manufactured with say a 5-to-10 percent reduction in distance capacity.” …

“…I believe the benefits of such a system would be the return of the superstar, and perhaps even the dominating player, to professional golf. This would happen as the hungriest and most talented players separated themselves from the rest by making up for what they lost in distance through better self- and course-management, improved shotmaking skills, and great competitive intensity. ”

…

“Improved equipment is, of course, not the only reason for golf’s lack of dominating performers in recent years.”

“One of the biggest changes in professional golf during my time in the game has been the physical fitness of the players. Thirty years ago, with a few exceptions like Gary Player, nobody did anything to increase his athleticism or improve his physical condition. Some guys after they had played might hit balls for awhile – most notably Ben Hogan – but the majority would just sit around and tell each other stories while having a few beers.”

“Those days are gone. … Most players eat more healthily than they used to, and they smoke and drink less, too. With a few exceptions like Greg Norman, who for years has trained strenuously under professional supervision, their athletic abilities might not compare with pro basketball players or marathon runners. Nevertheless, it is way beyond the standards of my early years. And, of course, the fitter the mass of golfers, the harder standing out becomes for any one of them.”

“Then there is the incentive factor.”

“Except for the Masters, the biggest purse on the tour in my first year as a professional in 1962 was the Thunderbird Classic’s $100,000, with most tournaments offering between one-third and one-half that amount, to be divided between thirty-five to forty players. Win and you generally took home between $5,000 and $9,000. Finish last and you hardly made the bus fare to the next event – usually well under $100.”

“Thirty-four years later, in 1996, the average purse on tour was $1,400,000, with highs of $3,000,000 (Players and Tour Championship).” …

“In evaluating these numbers, consider if you will how many more contenders your business would have attracted, and how much more competitive it would have become, given comparably huge increases in financial incentive over the same time span. By then imagining how much harder it would have become for you to remain a market dominator, you will get a sense what it takes to become a dominating golf champion as we approach the second millennium.”

“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”

Care to guess who wrote that in 1996, right before Tiger entered in on the most dominant 15 year period of golf that any professional golfer ever had?